What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code? • Hacker News Board

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#151

Post by danso » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

jstewartmobile wrote: post #135

GordonS wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd rather not have technically proficient felons near passwords, credit card #s, and other personal information Isn't a felon's debt to society meant to be repaid after their sentence ends? I'd much rather that people leave prison ready to be useful and/or productive members of society.

Trust has to be earned--even for non-felons. After the debt is paid, I think that puts the balance at zero. How many tech firms hire at zero--other than in situations like this limited-time virtue signaling / PR fodder opportunity?

The prisoners hired ostensibly showed commitment to good behavior, rehabilitation, and self-education, over a period of many years, in an environment extremely non-conducive to such aspirations. That amounts to more than “zero”.

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#152

Post by enraged_camel » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

Braggadocious wrote: post #112

I love how inmates get a better education and more support from tech companies than the adults who live in the bay area. The bay area has the worst income inequality of anywhere in any developed country. Bootcamps are a scam and cost tens of thousands of dollars and yet inmates, people convicted of severe crimes, are treated to free education. From a business standpoint this makes more sense because inmates have no b…

>>>Bootcamps are a scam and cost tens of thousands of dollars and yet

Can you please avoid taking cheap potshots like this? They make it sound like you have an axe to grind, and undermine any point you're trying to make.

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#153

Post by sokoloff » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 5:38 PM UTC

teucris wrote: post #144

sokoloff wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with perfect understanding, there are many people who believe along the lines of "the government which governs least governs best." Specifically, if you promised that every year you'd take 5% of the money of everyone richer than me, that I'd get a healthy slice of it, the rest would be spent on programs I approve of, and that there is no possible future in which that new tax would apply to me, I'd still vote aga…

In your hypothetical, what if the 5% tax was presented (with significant evidence) as a way to correct for market distortions that, if left unchecked, would be exploited by those at the top, politically and financially? Would you still want the government to not interfere?

I should perhaps step back to explain my concern over the 5% tax on "everyone richer than me".

Rather than starting from "we should exercise our power to tax the rich as a reaction to their success and to promote fairness", I start from "What services must the government provide the people?" then "How much will it cost to provide those services?" then once that is determined, figure out how to raise the needed revenue.

Tax revenue should not be raised to punish or correct for market distortions, but rather because it's needed to pay for an essential government service.

I believe, with very few exceptions, that the creation of wealth, even the concentration of great wealth in a few hands, represents evidence of a market success not a market failure. Those wealth creators mostly got there by providing something that many other people wanted and wanted so much that they parted with their own hard-earned money in exchange for the goods and services the wealth creators had on offer.

Similarly, when considering the role of government (such as when weighing a new program), I think it's better for society overall if the decision is made on a basis of "this newly proposed program is so beneficial/essential that everyone would be willing to pay some part of the cost of it" rather than "I'm willing to support this program that benefits me because I know that only other people are going to be paying for it."

So, yes, I'd be opposed to a tax presented with strong supporting evidence that that tax was motivated by raising incremental revenue under the justification/cover of "improving fairness".

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#154

Post by pjc50 » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 5:38 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #90

analog31 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opposite -- a presumption that people always vote in their own best interests -- is equally condescending because it's an expression that nobody can really believe. It's like everybody applauding and saying "good job" at the kindergarten music recital. In my view, evidence that people vote against their own interests is the massive industry that exists for the purpose of making that happen. The respectful middle…

Your logical error is assuming that it’s so obvious what “vot[ing] against [one’s] own interests” means. Maybe a stable free market government with a strong cultural and religious framework is in everyone’s interest, and the “massive industry” exists to convince people of that fact?

As a wise man once said, good ideas do not need a lot of lies told about them to be convincing.

Also, who is "everyone"? Whose culture is "cultural"? Which religion is the "religious framework"? The problem with the 1950s white patriachal evangelical Christian version of America is the huge bunch of people it didn't work for, who got counted out of "everyone".

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#155

Post by tensor » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #90

analog31 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opposite -- a presumption that people always vote in their own best interests -- is equally condescending because it's an expression that nobody can really believe. It's like everybody applauding and saying "good job" at the kindergarten music recital. In my view, evidence that people vote against their own interests is the massive industry that exists for the purpose of making that happen. The respectful middle…

Your logical error is assuming that it’s so obvious what “vot[ing] against [one’s] own interests” means. Maybe a stable free market government with a strong cultural and religious framework is in everyone’s interest, and the “massive industry” exists to convince people of that fact?

Actually, this is obvious. Voter votes for person who says they will do X. Voter doesn't understand the implications of X. Person gets elected, does X, fallout ensues. Voter now complaining about the consequences. This is a very obvious factual observation of voters voting against their own interests. It's not something up for debate.

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#156

Post by pjc50 » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

goatinaboat wrote: post #127

jashmatthews wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the 1997 Labour manifesto, which led to the UK doubling GDP from 97 to and 2007 and the 2019 Labour manifesto they’re very similar. If you ask people if Labour was good for the economy and would be good for the economy, you’ll largely get a negative response. Unfortunately it’s easy for people’s opinions to be shaped with zero basis in fact and when this happens it’s easy for them to vote against their…

If you look at the 1997 Labour manifesto, which led to the UK doubling GDP from 97 to and 2007 and the 2019 Labour manifesto they’re very similar The bits about nationalising everything were certainly very different so I don’t think this claim holds up to scrutiny. I also find it interesting that you stop at 2007. What happened in 2008 that might call into doubt Labour’s management of the economy?

> What happened in 2008 that might call into doubt Labour’s management of the economy?

The blowup of Lehman Brothers (US investment bank), ABN Ambro (Dutch bank recently acquired by RBS), Northern Rock (overextended British building society), Kaupthing (Iceland), and Anglo-Irish (despite the name, entirely Irish)? Yes, I'm sure that's all the fault of the Labour government.

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#157

Post by goatinaboat » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

sweeneyrod wrote: post #140

goatinaboat wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the 1997 Labour manifesto, which led to the UK doubling GDP from 97 to and 2007 and the 2019 Labour manifesto they’re very similar The bits about nationalising everything were certainly very different so I don’t think this claim holds up to scrutiny. I also find it interesting that you stop at 2007. What happened in 2008 that might call into doubt Labour’s management of the economy?

You're blaming Labour for an international financial crisis?

The financial crisis manifested itself in the UK wholly due to Gordon Brown’s mismanagement of the economy yes. A housing bubble and promising the end of boom and bust. Having sold off the gold reserves at a rock bottom price already.

Labour would like their voters to forget it was them who bailed out the banks too.

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#158

Post by Seanzie » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

lizardking wrote: post #44

harimau777 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that a better solution is possible in America's current political climate. As I see it there are basically three approaches that a progressive could take in a policy debate: - Persuasion: I think that you are mistaken as to what is in your best interest, here's why my approach would benefit you more. - Negotiation: Here's how we can work together to find a solution that meets both of our interests. - Zer…

You don’t need to convince republicans, you need to convince moderates who can be persuaded to vote one way or the other in a given election. In the context of a general election, we’re talking about thousands of people in a handful of states. I’m struggling with how the idea of “condescension isn’t persuasive” is finding so much friction here.

This reveals that it is possible to combine the Persuasion and Zero Sum methods that the poster above described: "Once I have persuaded 51% of voters to my view, I no longer need to care about your view."

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#159

Post by patcon » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 5:53 PM UTC

jtbayly wrote: post #13

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government is to govern. Government in most countries is driven by democratic mandates. Democratic mandates are set by influencers. The US’ key influencers are largely regressive and dishonest - and convince people to either not vote - or to vote against their personal best interests[1]. The US government does not currently have a democratic mandate to operate as the social welfare state. Consequently hundreds of tho…

> convince people to either not vote - or to vote against their personal best interests. I’ve seen this on HN several times, and it always cracks me up. The condescension isn't dripping. It’s running in torrents. You think the reason they won’t vote the way you want is because they don’t know what’s good for themselves. You might want to consider an alternate: they don’t want someone like you deciding what’s good for…

I feel like you're referring to the seam of high individualism in American culture. imho, that's the lie. And if we don't come to see that, it might be our collective undoing.

There's a reason our highest form of punishment is to isolate. It's not our functional unit of existing. To truly isolate us from others is to punish us perhaps worse than death. So what makes people think the individual should be our highest functional unit of decision-making after millions of years evolving otherwise?

This is something I wonder if western thought deserves to lose its crown over, if it can't course correct.

Disclosure: civic technologist, community organizer, biochemist

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#160

Post by sgift » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 5:56 PM UTC

lizardking wrote: post #44

harimau777 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that a better solution is possible in America's current political climate. As I see it there are basically three approaches that a progressive could take in a policy debate: - Persuasion: I think that you are mistaken as to what is in your best interest, here's why my approach would benefit you more. - Negotiation: Here's how we can work together to find a solution that meets both of our interests. - Zer…

You don’t need to convince republicans, you need to convince moderates who can be persuaded to vote one way or the other in a given election. In the context of a general election, we’re talking about thousands of people in a handful of states. I’m struggling with how the idea of “condescension isn’t persuasive” is finding so much friction here.

The idea that moderates or "the center" would win an election just broke Labours back in UK. It's also what broke Clintons campaign in 2016. The left has a big enough voting base to win elections, what it lacks is motivating them to vote. The exact opposite of what happens when you water down your positions in search of "moderates".

Interestingly, right-wing parties understand this quite well. If they loose an election you never hear that they have to convince moderates. Instead they get even more radical.